RE: Shed of the Week | Alfa Romeo 166
Discussion
Timberwolf said:
My experiences were purely 156-based, plus a bit of poking round an old 33 which I didn't swallow enough brave pills to buy. Admittedly by then Alfa had curbed their more out-there ideas such as roof-mounted window switches and the rather appealing idea of "glovebox... no, BRIEFCASE!" but I do recall such fun as passengers turning on the fog lights in the mistaken belief the control was meant for them, and some switch that was mounted behind the steering wheel and rather an exercise in contortion to reach while under way (possibly trip reset? It was a while ago).
Admittedly, some of the 156 idiosyncrasies I rather enjoyed. There is some amusement in sitting in the front while bemused passengers-to-be stare forlornly at the side of the car, aware there are rear doors but with no idea how to open them. (Also that's a rather fantastic design element, the way despite being a four door saloon each side has a single handle directly in the middle of the car)
Yes, trip reset on a 156 is a bit odd. The GTV is odder - you can’t actually see the switch behind the rather chunky wheel, so you’re thinking “where the f*** is the trip switch”, then you move your head and manage to spot it, and have to fold your hand behind the wheel. I think my 155 takes the biscuit. Everything is normal, other than the air con controls. They’re nowhere near the heating controls, they’re by the handbrake lever. Oh yes, the Alfetta GTV - when you’re holding the steering wheel at quarter to 3 .... the volume knob on the radio is closer to your left foot than your left hand.Admittedly, some of the 156 idiosyncrasies I rather enjoyed. There is some amusement in sitting in the front while bemused passengers-to-be stare forlornly at the side of the car, aware there are rear doors but with no idea how to open them. (Also that's a rather fantastic design element, the way despite being a four door saloon each side has a single handle directly in the middle of the car)
I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
rxe said:
Yes, trip reset on a 156 is a bit odd. The GTV is odder - you can’t actually see the switch behind the rather chunky wheel, so you’re thinking “where the f*** is the trip switch”, then you move your head and manage to spot it, and have to fold your hand behind the wheel. I think my 155 takes the biscuit. Everything is normal, other than the air con controls. They’re nowhere near the heating controls, they’re by the handbrake lever. Oh yes, the Alfetta GTV - when you’re holding the steering wheel at quarter to 3 .... the volume knob on the radio is closer to your left foot than your left hand.
I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
Aaaah, a time when there was that little difference on almost every car except the mainstream...I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
It never bothered, because you learned to adapt and that was it.
I remember my first real car, an Alfetta GTV with the two instrument pods, every test ranted about, no logical layout blablabla, the car was so slender, and had only a few switches (albeit badly lit at night), whoever got lost on the controls is out of me...
Ah, as posted above, regarding the sound system on my 166 (super), it still reminds me to this day as one of the best sounding and adjustable systems in any car I had so far.
As is said above, I have had two Busso V6 engines and neither has ever used a drop of oil. It's not a thing they are known for but why let that get in the way of a supposedly factual article?
Also, I totally agree that the 166 does not have flakey build quality. It feels very solidly put together. I have a 1998 156 too and that is nowhere near the quality of the 166. The only feature of the 166 that I think deserves a bit of criticism is the feel of buttons. Some are hard plastic when you push them and others are soft. There is no consistency but it's not a quality issue, just an area they didn't put much thought into. The 166 is a fantastic car.
Also, I totally agree that the 166 does not have flakey build quality. It feels very solidly put together. I have a 1998 156 too and that is nowhere near the quality of the 166. The only feature of the 166 that I think deserves a bit of criticism is the feel of buttons. Some are hard plastic when you push them and others are soft. There is no consistency but it's not a quality issue, just an area they didn't put much thought into. The 166 is a fantastic car.
courty said:
Most people prefer the facelift (generic conservative mid-00s) for looks, but as time goes on, the original will be the classic look, just like the early 164s are mostly preferred to the softer exec. styled facelift models.
I'm not sure comparing the 166 F/L to the minimal changes to the 164 when it went from big headlamps to slightly thinner headlamps works. The other Tipo Quattro cars, Croma, Thema and 9000 also went from big headlamps to skinnier headlamps when they were revamped.
If rarity is part of classic status I think far more of the original 166s were sold that the F/L versions.
sidewinder500 said:
rxe said:
Yes, trip reset on a 156 is a bit odd. The GTV is odder - you can’t actually see the switch behind the rather chunky wheel, so you’re thinking “where the f*** is the trip switch”, then you move your head and manage to spot it, and have to fold your hand behind the wheel. I think my 155 takes the biscuit. Everything is normal, other than the air con controls. They’re nowhere near the heating controls, they’re by the handbrake lever. Oh yes, the Alfetta GTV - when you’re holding the steering wheel at quarter to 3 .... the volume knob on the radio is closer to your left foot than your left hand.
I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
Aaaah, a time when there was that little difference on almost every car except the mainstream...I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
It never bothered, because you learned to adapt and that was it.
I remember my first real car, an Alfetta GTV with the two instrument pods, every test ranted about, no logical layout blablabla, the car was so slender, and had only a few switches (albeit badly lit at night), whoever got lost on the controls is out of me...
Ah, as posted above, regarding the sound system on my 166 (super), it still reminds me to this day as one of the best sounding and adjustable systems in any car I had so far.
Touring442 said:
sidewinder500 said:
rxe said:
Yes, trip reset on a 156 is a bit odd. The GTV is odder - you can’t actually see the switch behind the rather chunky wheel, so you’re thinking “where the f*** is the trip switch”, then you move your head and manage to spot it, and have to fold your hand behind the wheel. I think my 155 takes the biscuit. Everything is normal, other than the air con controls. They’re nowhere near the heating controls, they’re by the handbrake lever. Oh yes, the Alfetta GTV - when you’re holding the steering wheel at quarter to 3 .... the volume knob on the radio is closer to your left foot than your left hand.
I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
Aaaah, a time when there was that little difference on almost every car except the mainstream...I find the 166 pleasingly sane after driving any of the others.
It never bothered, because you learned to adapt and that was it.
I remember my first real car, an Alfetta GTV with the two instrument pods, every test ranted about, no logical layout blablabla, the car was so slender, and had only a few switches (albeit badly lit at night), whoever got lost on the controls is out of me...
Ah, as posted above, regarding the sound system on my 166 (super), it still reminds me to this day as one of the best sounding and adjustable systems in any car I had so far.
t they wanted you to believe so that you came buying your soulless stboxes...It seems to have worked, though, what a shame!
carinaman said:
I'm not sure comparing the 166 F/L to the minimal changes to the 164 when it went from big headlamps to slightly thinner headlamps works.
The changes from pre to post-facelift in the 164 were much more than just slimmer headlights and uprated interior. The entire engine/gearbox assembly was mounted lower in the chassis in an attempt to improve the handing. This was largely successful, although masked by adoption of the 24v Busso engine which had less torque lower down than the 12v (although more higher up), and by heavier steering.Back to the 166, I loved mine and did 50,000 miles in it with no issues other than cracked pedal box, which manifested itself via the clutch being very difficult to press far enough for smooth gearchanges. Quick bit of welding to remedy. The interior was far better than the 164, and things like the aircon was much better too (also much better than in 156s). Mine had satnav which was very peculiar even for the time - when returning to Bristol on the M4, it would always recommend leaving at the Newbury junction only to rejoin the motorway at the same junction!
Also, iirc, the 166 was the first car with l.e.d. rear indicators, trivia fans.
I had a v6 pre-facelift one of these. Absolutely loved it, the Busso V6 engine sounded glorious and revved right to the red line. The engine was incredibly reliable as well.
However it did have lots of electrical issues, peeling lacquer and the suspension components seemed to wear out quicker then the tires. The soft touch interior plastics also turned sticky and nasty over time. The clutch pedal on mine was also very stiff.
I sold mine with a weeks MOT on it, when problems I'd already fixed in 2 years and 10k miles of ownership started to occur again, although parts are easy to find once you know the right people. After checking online it failed its MOT a week after I sold it on various suspension parts and corrosion, both of which I was unaware were so bad.
Would I have another one, definitely but would have to be a v6 pre-facelift auto in better condition.
However it did have lots of electrical issues, peeling lacquer and the suspension components seemed to wear out quicker then the tires. The soft touch interior plastics also turned sticky and nasty over time. The clutch pedal on mine was also very stiff.
I sold mine with a weeks MOT on it, when problems I'd already fixed in 2 years and 10k miles of ownership started to occur again, although parts are easy to find once you know the right people. After checking online it failed its MOT a week after I sold it on various suspension parts and corrosion, both of which I was unaware were so bad.
Would I have another one, definitely but would have to be a v6 pre-facelift auto in better condition.
I had one and ran it from 50k to 115k in little under 2 years. Nicknamed the Lounge because it was so comfortable, I always got 30mpg at fast cruise on the motorway.
The only thing to watch is the twinspark engines like a little oil, other than that no issues
On holiday in France I noticed the 2.4 diesel was available in Europe.., another case of crap product strategy, I later had that great engine in a Brera
The 159 was a good and of course flawed spiritual successor, but for me the late 80s Alfas were better
The only thing to watch is the twinspark engines like a little oil, other than that no issues
On holiday in France I noticed the 2.4 diesel was available in Europe.., another case of crap product strategy, I later had that great engine in a Brera
The 159 was a good and of course flawed spiritual successor, but for me the late 80s Alfas were better
Mac Sinclair said:
The 159 was a good and of course flawed spiritual successor, but for me the late 80s Alfas were better
How does the 159 and 166 compare weight wise? I know an Alfitsi who purchased another 156 as they thought the 159 felt too heavy.I wouldn't be surprised if the 166 was lighter than the Brera.
Twoshoe said:
The changes from pre to post-facelift in the 164 were much more than just slimmer headlights and uprated interior. The entire engine/gearbox assembly was mounted lower in the chassis in an attempt to improve the handing. This was largely successful, although masked by adoption of the 24v Busso engine which had less torque lower down than the 12v (although more higher up), and by heavier steering.
Back to the 166, I loved mine and did 50,000 miles in it with no issues other than cracked pedal box, which manifested itself via the clutch being very difficult to press far enough for smooth gearchanges. Quick bit of welding to remedy. The interior was far better than the 164, and things like the aircon was much better too (also much better than in 156s). Mine had satnav which was very peculiar even for the time - when returning to Bristol on the M4, it would always recommend leaving at the Newbury junction only to rejoin the motorway at the same junction!
Also, iirc, the 166 was the first car with l.e.d. rear indicators, trivia fans.
Thanks Twoshoe, I was thinking there was something in CAR's Newcomer section about changes to the front suspension on the 164, so happy to be corrected. My memory is trying to tell me that the front suspension changes allowed a lower bonnet line. I'm aware of the cracking around the pedals in the 166, many years ago I was outbid on a Busso engined 166 that had had that issue dealt with.Back to the 166, I loved mine and did 50,000 miles in it with no issues other than cracked pedal box, which manifested itself via the clutch being very difficult to press far enough for smooth gearchanges. Quick bit of welding to remedy. The interior was far better than the 164, and things like the aircon was much better too (also much better than in 156s). Mine had satnav which was very peculiar even for the time - when returning to Bristol on the M4, it would always recommend leaving at the Newbury junction only to rejoin the motorway at the same junction!
Also, iirc, the 166 was the first car with l.e.d. rear indicators, trivia fans.
Edited by carinaman on Monday 23 March 05:40
i have an '05 2.0 Twin Spark identical to this one but in metallic Moonstone Grey.... which isn't really grey but actually a lovely bronze / gold hue. Sounds bad but believe me it isn't, see pic.
And I can absolutely vouch for what the writer says about it making you feel special - I've owned lots of Alfa's over the years and the 166 really is an absolute gem of an Alfa, well on-par with eg) the GTV 3.0 V6 in terms of "Alfa-ness"... and much better in "special" terms than the Brera or 159. It's a lovely car to drive, and it is high quality despite what he says - Alfa really pushed the boat out & spent big on the 166 to compete with BMW, Merc etc and it shows. The eg) 156 feels in a different lower league quality-wise.
He's right about it being a bit under-powered, but it really makes up for it in its beautifully sweet handling & steering feel being much lighter than the V6 version. For a big car it feels incredibly light & nimble. And even though it's not hugely fast, it's a v responsive & free-revving engine almost "nippy" in feel. Plus it makes a lovely rasping sound esp if you have a stainless exhaust like mine. OK it's no Busso V6 but it stil has bags of character. Beautifully sweet gearchange as well. I get about 32 - 34mpg out of it overall.
I use mine daily & have put about 30k miles on it in 18 months, now on 120k miles. And it has been extremely reliable ... though I was so lucky to get an excellent one which had been very well looked-after all its life with an FSH. I paid over-the-odds but it is worth it in the end. And an absolute world-away in terms of reliability than the '07 Merc CLK 320CDi I had previous to it - that was a shocker but they are extremely complex cars. The 166 is an old-school simple lump in comparison.
He's wrong about oil consumption - these Twin Spark engines love a drop so you HAVE to check it every few days & top-up or else it can lead to terminal engine failure. Apart from that they can go past 150k miles no sweat. Also the leaking heater matrix / dodgy electronics is much more common issue in the pre-facelift Sportonic box, later ones tend to be fine.
Anyway, I could wax-lyrical about the 166 ad nauseum. Suffice to say I cannot imagine any other comparable car eg) 5-Series, Merc E-Class, Audi, Volvo etc feeling anywhere near as special or look so good.
And I can absolutely vouch for what the writer says about it making you feel special - I've owned lots of Alfa's over the years and the 166 really is an absolute gem of an Alfa, well on-par with eg) the GTV 3.0 V6 in terms of "Alfa-ness"... and much better in "special" terms than the Brera or 159. It's a lovely car to drive, and it is high quality despite what he says - Alfa really pushed the boat out & spent big on the 166 to compete with BMW, Merc etc and it shows. The eg) 156 feels in a different lower league quality-wise.
He's right about it being a bit under-powered, but it really makes up for it in its beautifully sweet handling & steering feel being much lighter than the V6 version. For a big car it feels incredibly light & nimble. And even though it's not hugely fast, it's a v responsive & free-revving engine almost "nippy" in feel. Plus it makes a lovely rasping sound esp if you have a stainless exhaust like mine. OK it's no Busso V6 but it stil has bags of character. Beautifully sweet gearchange as well. I get about 32 - 34mpg out of it overall.
I use mine daily & have put about 30k miles on it in 18 months, now on 120k miles. And it has been extremely reliable ... though I was so lucky to get an excellent one which had been very well looked-after all its life with an FSH. I paid over-the-odds but it is worth it in the end. And an absolute world-away in terms of reliability than the '07 Merc CLK 320CDi I had previous to it - that was a shocker but they are extremely complex cars. The 166 is an old-school simple lump in comparison.
He's wrong about oil consumption - these Twin Spark engines love a drop so you HAVE to check it every few days & top-up or else it can lead to terminal engine failure. Apart from that they can go past 150k miles no sweat. Also the leaking heater matrix / dodgy electronics is much more common issue in the pre-facelift Sportonic box, later ones tend to be fine.
Anyway, I could wax-lyrical about the 166 ad nauseum. Suffice to say I cannot imagine any other comparable car eg) 5-Series, Merc E-Class, Audi, Volvo etc feeling anywhere near as special or look so good.
Edited by defonsecca on Monday 23 March 18:49
Twoshoe said:
carinaman said:
I'm not sure comparing the 166 F/L to the minimal changes to the 164 when it went from big headlamps to slightly thinner headlamps works.
The changes from pre to post-facelift in the 164 were much more than just slimmer headlights and uprated interior. The entire engine/gearbox assembly was mounted lower in the chassis in an attempt to improve the handing. This was largely successful, although masked by adoption of the 24v Busso engine which had less torque lower down than the 12v (although more higher up), and by heavier steering.Back to the 166, I loved mine and did 50,000 miles in it with no issues other than cracked pedal box, which manifested itself via the clutch being very difficult to press far enough for smooth gearchanges. Quick bit of welding to remedy. The interior was far better than the 164, and things like the aircon was much better too (also much better than in 156s). Mine had satnav which was very peculiar even for the time - when returning to Bristol on the M4, it would always recommend leaving at the Newbury junction only to rejoin the motorway at the same junction!
Also, iirc, the 166 was the first car with l.e.d. rear indicators, trivia fans.
Facelifts 164: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/car-reviews/alfa-romeo...
I know the QV pretty much kept the same look in the facelift, but I mean't the regular models became more refined and conservative in the styling, in the same way as Alfa Romeo attempted to make the 166 more widely acceptable in the facelift 166. I'm not knocking the facelifts, either 164 or 166, but I meant that in both facelifts, Alfa Romeo made the styling more mainstream in both cases.
defonsecca said:
i have an '05 2.0 Twin Spark identical to this one but in metallic Moonstone Grey.... which isn't really grey but actually a lovely bronze / gold hue. Sounds bad but believe me it isn't, see pic.
And I can absolutely vouch for what the writer says about it making you feel special - I've owned lots of Alfa's over the years and the 166 really is an absolute gem of an Alfa, well on-par with eg) the GTV 3.0 V6 in terms of "Alfa-ness"... and much better in "special" terms than the Brera or 159. It's a lovely car to drive, and it is high quality despite what he says - Alfa really pushed the boat out & spent big on the 166 to compete with BMW, Merc etc and it shows. The eg) 156 feels in a different lower league quality-wise.
He's right about it being a bit under-powered, but it really makes up for it in its beautifully sweet handling & steering feel being much lighter than the V6 version. For a big car it feels incredibly light & nimble. And even though it's not hugely fast, it's a v responsive & free-revving engine almost "nippy" in feel. Plus it makes a lovely rasping sound esp if you have a stainless exhaust like mine. OK it's no Busso V6 but it stil has bags of character. Beautifully sweet gearchange as well. I get about 32 - 34mpg out of it overall.
I use mine daily & have put about 30k miles on it in 18 months, now on 120k miles. And it has been extremely reliable ... though I was so lucky to get an excellent one which had been very well looked-after all its life with an FSH. I paid over-the-odds but it is worth it in the end. And an absolute world-away in terms of reliability than the '07 Merc CLK 320CDi I had previous to it - that was a shocker but they are extremely complex cars. The 166 is an old-school simple lump in comparison.
He's wrong about oil consumption - these Twin Spark engines love a drop so you HAVE to check it every few days & top-up or else it can lead to terminal engine failure. Apart from that they can go past 150k miles no sweat. Also the leaking heater matrix / dodgy electronics is much more common issue in the pre-facelift Sportonic box, later ones tend to be fine.
Anyway, I could wax-lyrical about the 166 ad nauseum. Suffice to say I cannot imagine any other comparable car eg) 5-Series, Merc E-Class, Audi, Volvo etc feeling anywhere near as special or look so good.
phwoar.And I can absolutely vouch for what the writer says about it making you feel special - I've owned lots of Alfa's over the years and the 166 really is an absolute gem of an Alfa, well on-par with eg) the GTV 3.0 V6 in terms of "Alfa-ness"... and much better in "special" terms than the Brera or 159. It's a lovely car to drive, and it is high quality despite what he says - Alfa really pushed the boat out & spent big on the 166 to compete with BMW, Merc etc and it shows. The eg) 156 feels in a different lower league quality-wise.
He's right about it being a bit under-powered, but it really makes up for it in its beautifully sweet handling & steering feel being much lighter than the V6 version. For a big car it feels incredibly light & nimble. And even though it's not hugely fast, it's a v responsive & free-revving engine almost "nippy" in feel. Plus it makes a lovely rasping sound esp if you have a stainless exhaust like mine. OK it's no Busso V6 but it stil has bags of character. Beautifully sweet gearchange as well. I get about 32 - 34mpg out of it overall.
I use mine daily & have put about 30k miles on it in 18 months, now on 120k miles. And it has been extremely reliable ... though I was so lucky to get an excellent one which had been very well looked-after all its life with an FSH. I paid over-the-odds but it is worth it in the end. And an absolute world-away in terms of reliability than the '07 Merc CLK 320CDi I had previous to it - that was a shocker but they are extremely complex cars. The 166 is an old-school simple lump in comparison.
He's wrong about oil consumption - these Twin Spark engines love a drop so you HAVE to check it every few days & top-up or else it can lead to terminal engine failure. Apart from that they can go past 150k miles no sweat. Also the leaking heater matrix / dodgy electronics is much more common issue in the pre-facelift Sportonic box, later ones tend to be fine.
Anyway, I could wax-lyrical about the 166 ad nauseum. Suffice to say I cannot imagine any other comparable car eg) 5-Series, Merc E-Class, Audi, Volvo etc feeling anywhere near as special or look so good.
Edited by defonsecca on Monday 23 March 18:49
Lovely looking thing
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff